User:Pinkcats99/Cornelia (mother of the Gracchi)/GrapeJelly84 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Pinkcats99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PinkCats99/Cornelia (mother of the Gracchi)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead already covered the article Cornelia pretty well, and my peer has updated the title/heading by capitalizing Mother and adding Brothers to it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article already covers her parentage as well as her identity as the mother of the Gracchi brothers.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sorta. It gives a small background information about her before getting more detailed and more informative in the bibliography and the following sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not before we get into the bibliography it doesn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise.

Lead evaluation
I noticed the lead in the article didn't mention who her husband was that she had the Gracchi brothers with. I know in the next section of the bibliography you mention it, and I think it would be great to have that mentioned in the lead too.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content added by my peer gives us more insight in the type of person Cornelia was and the identity of her past partners before marrying Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. I also appreciate the mentioning of how/where her past husbands died.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One secondary source is dated from 1594.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? My peer does an excellent job removing unnecessary items from the wiki article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It addresses the life of Cornelia whose existence is often only referred to as the mother of the Gracchi brothers.

Content evaluation
Great job delving in deeper in the beginning of the bibliography section. The first sentenced in the bibliography does a great job presenting Cornelia and her reputation. Before your edit, the article failed to mention any information regarding her two deceased husbands. Also, I'm glad you drew attention to the article's missing dates (age of ??). It would be great if you could find those ages, if possible.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, my peer offers no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Most of the information is presented factual wise and lack bias towards any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think for the most part, my peer does an adequate job of avoiding them both.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It just proved helpful in further understanding Cornelia as an individual.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall a great job maintaining neutrality. In no edits was I convince my peer was being bias towards favoring or disapproving of Cornelia.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Essentially they are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not sure how diverse the sources featuring Cornelia is, but I would assume not that much.
 * Are the sources current? For the most part yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Again, I'm not sure how diverse the the sources that exist are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The ones linking to Perseus do, I had trouble accessing the 1594 one though.

Sources and references evaluation
Good call using Perseus.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. I had no difficulty understanding the edits done by my peer.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any that I was able to pick up on.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think for the most part, the article is very well structured.

Organization evaluation
Well done. The sections succeed in flowing into each other.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. I really appreciate the additions of these images.
 * Are images well-captioned? From my understanding of captions, it appears so.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so. Each image is labeled as belonging to public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Absolutely.

Images and media evaluation
Excellent work on selecting and organizing these images you added.

For New Articles Only (N/A)
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. The reputation of Cornelia and her past marriages significantly helps in understand Cornelia.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? From my peer's edit we learn that Cornelia was not married once, but thrice. And it was in her third marriage that she had the Gracchi brothers.
 * How can the content added be improved? Keep up the research, I look forward to hearing more about Cornelia's life. Also if you are able to find the ages you highlighted as missing from the original wiki article, that would be great.

Overall evaluation
Great job in diving deeper in Cornelia's bibliography and reputation.